Knowledge sharing in global health research - the impact, uptake and cost of open access to scholarly literature

Open Access Publishing Metrics, Cost, and Impact in Health Professions Education Journals

Importance

Publishing in health professions education (HPE) journals is an integral component of academic discourse and career progression. Research in this field is shifting to an open access (OA) publishing model.

Objective

To identify the characteristics and publishing models of HPE journals and explore potential associations between publication costs and journal metrics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study was conducted between September 20, 2023, and February 14, 2024, using the World Bank purchasing power parity (PPP) index to analyze relative costs of article processing charges (APCs). Data on journal characteristics, impact metrics, APCs, and waiver or discount were extracted from the National Library of Medicine, Scimago, Scopus, journal websites, and email correspondence with editorial staff of journals. All HPE journals indexed in PubMed, written in or translated into English, and with HPE as a core component of their mission were included in the analysis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Two-year impact factor, H-index, cite score, Scientific Journal Ranking, and APC.

Results

Among the 51 journals included, 27 (53%) adopted OA-only and 24 (47%) adopted hybrid publishing models. The median (IQR) APC for all journals was $2820.00 ($928.00-$3300.00). Associations were observed between impact factor and APC (β coefficient, $386.84; 95% CI, $226.84-$546.84; P < .001) and between cite score and APC (β coefficient, $282.40; 95% CI, $148.12-$416.61; P < .001). Of 20 journal websites with information regarding fee waivers or discounts, 7 journals (35%) confirmed fee waiver or discount. The PPP index analysis of the top 39 countries publishing HPE research showed that the financial burden of meeting the median APC for publication was 1.94 to 10.26 times higher for authors from lower-income countries than for authors from the US.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that adoption by HPE journals of an OA publishing model was high but access to APC waivers or discounts was limited. These factors create barriers to equitable OA practices, necessitating concerted efforts, such as increasing transparency of publishing costs, implementing economic impact analysis, expanding waivers to eligible authors, and applying holistic impact factor scoring.

The impact of open access on citations, Pageviews, and downloads: a scientometric analysis in Postgraduate Medical Journal

PURPOSE

The influence of Open Access (OA) on the citation impact of scholarly articles remains a topic of considerable debate. This study aims to elucidate the relationship between OA publication and citation metrics, as well as article visibility, within the context of the Postgraduate Medical Journal (PMJ).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 373 articles published in PMJ between 2020 and 2021. Data on OA status, citations, page views, PDF downloads, and other relevant variables were extracted from Journal Citation Reports and PMJ's official website. Multivariable linear regression and other statistical analyses were used to assess the impact of OA on these metrics.

RESULTS

OA articles (n = 78) demonstrated significantly higher citation counts, page views, and PDF downloads compared with subscription-based articles (n = 295). Specifically, OA articles showed a significant increase in citation frequency with a β coefficient of 25.08 and a 95% CI of 17.168-32.992 (P < .001). Similarly, OA status was independently associated with increases in page views [β = 288.636, 95%CI: 177.749-399.524, P < .001] and PDF downloads [β = 118.966, 95%CI: 86.357-151.575, P < .001]. Strong correlations among total citations, page views, and PDF downloads were observed in both OA and subscription articles.

CONCLUSION

The study highlights a significant and independent association of OA publishing with increased citation counts, page views, and PDF downloads in PMJ, suggesting that OA articles have broader reach and greater visibility. Further research, including randomized controlled studies across various journals, is needed to confirm these findings and explore the full impact of OA publishing.

A scoping review of policies to encourage breastfeeding, healthy eating, and physical activity among rural people and places in the United States

BACKGROUND

Rural U.S. residents experience a disproportionate burden of diet and physical activity (PA) related chronic disease compared to urban residents, due to resource and economic challenges. Diverse policy approaches for chronic disease prevention have been implemented to address barriers to breastfeeding, healthy eating, and PA. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to describe policy supports for breastfeeding, healthy eating, and/or PA occurring in rural U.S. areas.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted March-June 2020 to identify policy, systems, and environment change approaches occurring in the rural U.S. for breastfeeding, healthy eating, and PA. Search procedures were guided by the PRISMA-ScR, Arksey and O'Malley's work (2007), and a science librarian. Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, and Agricola were used to identify peer-reviewed research. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses A&I were used to identify dissertation research. Grey literature searches included Google, Google Scholar, government pages, and public health, federal nutrition assistance program, Cooperative Extension Services, and related webpages. Policy results are reported and inclusion criteria were: (1) breastfeeding, healthy eating, and/or PA focus; (2) about policy factors; (3) specific to U.S. rural populations/places; and (4) English language. Outcomes (study/source design, objective(s), methods/measurement, setting, population characteristics, behavioral focus, policy-specific results) were extracted into a standardized Excel document.

RESULTS

Results include 122 total sources: original research, with some sources referencing multiple behaviors, (n = 74 sources: 8 breastfeeding, 41 healthy eating, 42 PA), grey literature (n = 45 sources: 16 breastfeeding, 15 healthy eating, 27 PA), and graduate research (n = 3 sources: 1 breastfeeding, 2 healthy eating, 1 PA). Breastfeeding policy initiatives included policies or programs at hospitals, increasing access to resources, and improving culture or norms at workplaces. Healthy eating policy initiatives included increasing access to healthy foods, reducing financial burden, implementing programs, food assistance programs, and healthy food prescriptions at healthcare facilities. PA policy initiatives focused on Complete Streets, joint or shared use efforts, Safe Routes to Schools, master plans for greenways, trails, and/or transportation, school health plans, and childcare/school standards.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this scoping review compile and offer commentary on existing policy solutions to improve breastfeeding, healthy eating, and/or PA in the rural U.S.

Unfair knowledge practices in global health: a realist synthesis

Unfair knowledge practices easily beset our efforts to achieve health equity within and between countries. Enacted by people from a distance and from a position of power ('the centre') on behalf of and alongside people with less power ('the periphery'), these unfair practices have generated a complex literature of complaints across various axes of inequity. We identified a sample of this literature from 12 journals and systematized it using the realist approach to explanation. We framed the outcome to be explained as 'manifestations of unfair knowledge practices'; their generative mechanisms as 'the reasoning of individuals or rationale of institutions'; and context that enable them as 'conditions that give knowledge practices their structure'. We identified four categories of unfair knowledge practices, each triggered by three mechanisms: (1) credibility deficit related to pose (mechanisms: 'the periphery's cultural knowledge, technical knowledge and "articulation" of knowledge do not matter'), (2) credibility deficit related to gaze (mechanisms: 'the centre's learning needs, knowledge platforms and scholarly standards must drive collective knowledge-making'), (3) interpretive marginalization related to pose (mechanisms: 'the periphery's sensemaking of partnerships, problems and social reality do not matter') and (4) interpretive marginalization related to gaze (mechanisms: 'the centre's learning needs, social sensitivities and status preservation must drive collective sensemaking'). Together, six mutually overlapping, reinforcing and dependent categories of context influence all 12 mechanisms: 'mislabelling' (the periphery as inferior), 'miseducation' (on structural origins of disadvantage), 'under-representation' (of the periphery on knowledge platforms), 'compounded spoils' (enjoyed by the centre), 'under-governance' (in making, changing, monitoring, enforcing and applying rules for fair engagement) and 'colonial mentality' (of/at the periphery). These context-mechanism-outcome linkages can inform efforts to redress unfair knowledge practices, investigations of unfair knowledge practices across disciplines and axes of inequity and ethics guidelines for health system research and practice when working at a social or physical distance.

Open Access Publication in Total Ankle Arthroplasty Literature Is Associated With Increased Social Media Attention, but Not Increased Citations

Background

Open access (OA) publications are increasingly common in orthopaedic literature. However, whether OA publications are associated with increased readership or citations among total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) literature is unclear. We hypothesize that compared with non-OA status, OA status is associated with increased social media dissemination, and readership, but not with citation count. This study aimed to analyze social media attention, citations, readership, and cost of TAA OA and non-OA publications.

Methods

Using a PubMed query search, there were 368 publications from 81 journals, with 25% (91/368) being OA articles and 75% (277/368) non-OA articles from 2016 to 2023. We analyzed the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), Mendeley readership score, and citations between OA vs non-OA articles. Citations and cost of OA articles were determined using an altered timeline and publisher's website, respectively. Subgroup analysis was performed among articles published in the top 5 TAA journals (Tables 2 and 3). Negative binomial regression was used while adjusting for days since publication. Significance was considered at P <.05.

Results

OA publication was associated with a larger mean AAS score (8.7 ± 37.0 vs 4.8 ± 26.3), Mendeley readership (42.4 ± 41.6 vs 34.9 ± 25.7), and Twitter mentions (4.6 ± 7.4 vs 3.3 ± 8.1), but not citations (19.7 ± 24.8 vs 20.3 ± 23.5) (Table 1).

Conclusion

TAA OA publications and top 5 journals were associated with significantly increased social media attention but not Mendeley readership or citation counts.

A pathway to strengthening open science: comments on the draft South African Ethics in Health Research Guidelines

The recently released draft South African Ethics in Health Research Guidelines: Principles, Processes and Structures (Draft Guidelines) by the National Health Research Ethics Council recognize open data and provide guiding principles for this in the context of health research in South Africa. While its inclusion is a positive development, there is room for improvement. Although the Draft Guidelines leverage the Draft National Policy on Data and Cloud, it lacks incorporation of other relevant government policies, notably the Draft National Open Science Policy, and fails to sufficiently detail the principles of open science and open access. This limited scope and lack of comprehensive definition and detailed guidance present challenges for researchers in conducting ethical and responsible health research in South Africa. It constrains the Draft Guidelines from fully aligning with national imperatives and from fostering African-centric approaches. To address these issues, it is recommended that the Draft Guidelines integrate broader policies and principles, enhance clarity through comprehensive definitions, provide detailed guidance on open access, and promote African-centric approaches. Implementing these solutions will strengthen the Draft Guidelines, aligning them with national visions of open science, and thereby harnessing the full potential of South Africa's diverse scientific community in advancing health research.

Open Access Publication in Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With Increased Social Media Attention, but Is Not Associated With Increased Citations

BACKGROUND

Open access (OA) publication is growing in total joint arthroplasty literature. While OA manuscripts are free to view, these publications require a fee from authors. This study aimed to compare social media attention and citation rates between OA and non-OA publications in the total knee arthroplasty (TKA) literature.

METHODS

There were 9,606 publications included, with 4,669 (48.61%) as OA articles. The TKA articles were identified from 2016 to 2022. Articles were grouped as OA or non-OA and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), a weighted count of social media attention, and the Mendeley readership were analyzed using negative binomial regressions while adjusting for days since publication.

RESULTS

The OA articles had greater mean AAS (13.45 versus 8.42, P = .012) and Mendeley readership (43.91 versus 36.72, P < .001). OA was not an independent predictor of number of citations when compared to non-OA articles (13.98 versus 13.63, P = .914). Subgroup analysis of studies in the top 10 arthroplasty journals showed OA was not an independent predictor of AAS (13.51 versus 9.53, P = .084) or number of citations (19.51 versus 18.74, P = .495) but was an independent predictor of Mendeley readership (49.05 versus 40.25, P < .003).

CONCLUSION

The OA publications in the TKA literature were associated with increased social media attention, but not overall citations. This association was not observed among the top 10 journals. Authors may use these results to weigh the relative importance of readership, citations, and online engagement to the cost of OA publication.

Integrating multi-national teams: over a decade of lessons learned in Chiapas with Partners in Health-Mexico

In a globalized world where pathology and risk can flow freely across borders, the discipline of global health equity has proposed to meet this challenge with an equal exchange of solutions, and people working toward those solutions. Considering the history of colonialism, ongoing economic exploitation, and gaping inequities across and within countries, these efforts must be taken with care. The Partners In Health program in Chiapas, Mexico was founded in 2011 by a team of leaders from both the United States and Mexico to strengthen the public health and care delivery systems serving impoverished rural populations. Key to the strategy has been to marshal funding, knowledge, and expertise from elite institutions in both the United States and Mexico for the benefit of an area that previously had rarely seen such inputs, but always in close partnership with local leaders and community processes. With now over a decade of experience, several key lessons have emerged in both what was done well and what continues to present ongoing challenges. Top successes include: effective recruitment and retention strategies for attracting talented Mexican clinicians to perform their social service year in previously unappealing rural placements; using effective fund-raising strategies from multinational sources to ensure the health care delivered can be exemplary; and effectively integrating volunteer clinicians from high-income contexts in a way that benefits the local staff, the foreign visitors, and their home institutions. A few chief ongoing challenges remain: how to work with local communities to receive foreign visitors; how to hire, develop, and appropriately pay a diverse workforce that comes with differing expectations for their professional development; and how to embed research in non-extractive ways. Our community case study suggests that multinational global health teams can be successful if they share the goal of achieving mutual benefit through an equity lens, and are able to apply creativity and humility to form deep partnerships.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VIII: Barriers to research in oral medicine: results from a global survey

OBJECTIVES

To explore factors influencing research interest and productivity and perceived barriers to conducting research in Oral Medicine (OM).

METHODS

Invitations to participate in an online survey were e-mailed to a network of international OM practitioners and related professional organizations. Questions captured respondents' demographic/professional variables and gauged research interest, productivity, and perceived barriers to conducting research specifically in OM. Statistical analysis was conducted via descriptive, logistic regression, and multivariate modeling.

RESULTS

Five hundred and ninety-three OM practitioners from 55 countries completed the survey, with 54%, 25%, and 21% practicing in high, upper-middle, and lower-middle-income countries, respectively. Eighty-six percent of respondents were interested in conducting research. Age (less interest with an increase in age), working in academia, and practicing in a lower-middle vs high-income country were significant predictors of research interest. Self-reported research productivity was significantly greater among males, those working in academia, and those who graduated from programs that mandated research presentation/publication. Obtaining research funding was a significant barrier among respondents from lower and upper-middle-income countries, whereas finding time for research was a reported barrier by respondents from high-income countries.

CONCLUSION

The results of this survey identified perceived barriers to conducting research in OM and highlighted solutions to address such barriers.

Open(ing) Access: Top Health Publication Availability to Researchers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Introduction

Improving access to information for health professionals and researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is under-prioritized. This study examines publication policies that affect authors and readers from LMICs.

Methods

We used the SHERPA RoMEO database and publicly available publishing protocols to evaluate open access (OA) policies, article processing charges (APCs), subscription costs, and availability of health literature relevant to authors and readers in LMICs. Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies with percentages. Continuous variables were reported with median and interquartile range (IQR). Hypothesis testing procedures were performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests, Wilcoxon rank sum exact tests, and Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results

A total of 55 journals were included; 6 (11%) were Gold OA (access to readers and large charge for authors), 2 (3.6%) were subscription (charge for readers and small/no charge for authors), 4 (7.3%) were delayed OA (reader access with no charge after embargo), and 43 (78%) were hybrid (author's choice). There was no significant difference between median APC for life sciences, medical, and surgical journals ($4,850 [$3,500-$8,900] vs. $4,592 [$3,500-$5,000] vs. $3,550 [$3,200-$3,860]; p = 0.054). The median US individual subscription costs (USD/Year) were significantly different for life sciences, medical, and surgical journals ($259 [$209-$282] vs. $365 [$212-$744] vs. $455 [$365-$573]; p = 0.038), and similar for international readers. A total of seventeen journals (42%) had a subscription price that was higher for international readers than for US readers.

Conclusions

Most journals offer hybrid access services. Authors may be forced to choose between high cost with greater reach through OA and low cost with less reach publishing under the subscription model under current policies. International readers face higher costs. Such hindrances may be mitigated by a greater awareness and liberal utilization of OA policies.

Hybrid Gold Open Access Citation Advantage in Clinical Medicine: Analysis of Hybrid Journals in the Web of Science

Biomedical fields have seen a remarkable increase in hybrid Gold open access articles. However, it is uncertain whether the hybrid Gold open access option contributes to a citation advantage, an increase in the citations of articles made immediately available as open access regardless of the article’s quality or whether it involves a trending topic of discussion. This study aimed to compare the citation counts of hybrid Gold open access articles to subscription articles published in hybrid journals. The study aimed to ascertain if hybrid Gold open access publications yield an advantage in terms of citations. This cross-sectional study included the list of hybrid journals under 59 categories in the ‘Clinical Medicine’ group from Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports (JCR) during 2018–2021. The number of citable items with ‘Gold Open Access’ and ‘Subscription and Free to Read’ in each journal, as well as the number of citations of those citable items, were extracted from JCR. A hybrid Gold open access citation advantage was computed by dividing the number of citations per citable item with hybrid Gold open access by the number of citations per citable item with a subscription. A total of 498, 636, 1009, and 1328 hybrid journals in the 2018 JCR, 2019 JCR, 2020 JCR, and 2021 JCR, respectively, were included in this study. The citation advantage of hybrid Gold open access articles over subscription articles in 2018 was 1.45 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.24–1.65); in 2019, it was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.20–1.41); in 2020, it was 1.30 (95% CI, 1.20–1.39); and in 2021, it was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.20–1.42). In the ‘Clinical Medicine’ discipline, the articles published in the hybrid journal as hybrid Gold open access had a greater number of citations when compared to those published as a subscription, self-archived, or otherwise openly accessible option.

Peer reviewers from Low- and Middle-Income Countries(LMIC) for open access journals in oncology can improve the equity in cancer research and clinical trials

Open access journals (OAJ) in biomedicine are promoted to improve the reach and distribution of global health research (GHR).However, in the last 20 years, article publishing charge (APC) is attracting and publishing the vast majority of papers from high-income countries (HIC) in 'oncology' journals under OAJ. This paper outlines the impediments for cancer research and publication from low-and middle-income countries (LMIC): (a) existing disparities in cancer care facilities and survival outcomes between HIC and LMIC, (b) more than 70% of OAJ in 'oncology' subject levy APC, becoming unaffordable for scientists and clinicians from LMIC, (c) impactful OAJ in oncology engage less than 10% of members from LMIC in editorial board or as peer reviewer, whereas two-third of cancer diagnosis and management occur in these countries. Peer review serves the editors by recommending the relevant papers. Thus, peer reviewers from developing countries working for the OAJs in 'oncology' can increase the diversity in publication, improving the GHR in cancer management. The cancer research and clinical trials which can bring to notice the challenges and hurdles faced by researchers, clinicians and cancer patients in LMIC will be served to some measure by engaging peer reviewers from those countries who understand the ecosystem.

Leveraging Open Tools to Realize the Potential of Self-Archiving: A Cohort Study in Clinical Trials

While open access (OA) is growing, many publications remain behind a paywall. This limits the impact of research and entrenches global inequalities by restricting access to knowledge to those that can afford it. Many journal policies allow researchers to make a version of their publication openly accessible through self-archiving in a repository, sometimes after an embargo period (green OA). Unpaywall and Shareyourpaper are open tools that help users find OA articles and support authors to legally self-archive their papers, respectively. This study leveraged these tools to assess the potential of green OA to increase discoverability in a cohort of clinical trial results publications from German university medical centers. Of the 1897 publications in this cohort, 46% (n = 871/1897, 95% confidence interval (CI) 44% to 48%) were neither openly accessible via a journal or a repository. Of these, 85% (n = 736/871, 95% CI 82% to 87%) had a permission to self-archive the accepted or published version in an institutional repository. Thus, most of the closed-access clinical trial results in this cohort could be made openly accessible in a repository, in line with World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations. In addition to providing further evidence of the unrealized potential of green OA, this study demonstrates the use of open tools to obtain actionable information on self-archiving at scale and empowers efforts to increase science discoverability.

Open access publishing - noble intention, flawed reality

For two decades, the international scholarly publishing community has been embroiled in a divisive debate about the best model for funding the dissemination of scientific research. Some may assume that this debate has been thoroughly resolved in favour of the Open Access (OA) model of scientific publishing. Recent commentaries reveal a less settled reality. This narrative review aims to lay out the nature of these deep divisions among the sector's stakeholders, reflects on their systemic drivers and considers the future prospects for actualising OA's intended benefits and surmounting its risks and costs. In the process, we highlight some of inequities OA presents for junior or unfunded researchers, and academics from resource-poor environments, for whom an increasing body of evidence shows clear evidence of discrimination and injustice caused by Article Processing Charges. The authors are university-appointed researchers working the UK and South Africa, trained in disciplines ranging from medicine and epidemiology to social science and digital science. We have no vested interest in any particular model of scientific publication, and no conflicts of interest to declare. We believe the issues we identify are pertinent to almost all research disciplines.

Identifying the scope of ethical challenges caused by the Ebola epidemic 2014-2016 in West Africa: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The West African Ebola virus epidemic from 2014 to 2016 is unprecedented in its scale, surpassing all previous and subsequent Ebola outbreaks since 1976. This epidemic provoked a humanitarian emergency that extended to different spheres of life, making visible ethical challenges in addition to medical, economic, and social ones. The present article aims to identify and differentiate the scope of ethical issues associated with the Ebola epidemic.

METHODS

An online media analysis was performed on articles published from March 2014 to September 2015 in ten preselected academic journals (scientific press) and two online newspapers (lay press). Two methodological approaches were combined: a systematic literature search and a qualitative content analysis. An additional keyword search was conducted on the PubMed database for the period after the end of the Ebola epidemic (2016-2020) to obtain an overview of research dealing with medical ethics due to the epidemic and to compare these results with the identified ethical challenges.

RESULTS

A total of 389 articles dealing with the subject fields "Ebola epidemic" and "ethics" were researched. For qualitative content analysis, the time span with the highest article density was selected and a total of 64 articles were included (15 scientific articles, 49 popular articles). Five core ethical challenges of the Ebola epidemic emerged: 1. Responsibility and Accountability, 2. Spillover Effects, 3. Research and Development, 4. Health Communication, and 5. Resource Allocation. Articles in academic journals were dominated by the discussion of normative aspects in the area of "research and development", while newspaper articles focused on aspects of "responsibility and accountability".

CONCLUSION

An ethical discussion of the Ebola epidemic requires an examination of as many of the ethical dimensions involved as possible. The presented investigation of the two types of media with regard to the Ebola epidemic offers this possibility of a more comprehensive insight into this diversity as a basis for ethical discussions.

Do open-access dermatology articles have higher citation counts than those with subscription-based access?

BACKGROUND

Open-access (OA) publishing is increasingly prevalent in dermatology, and many journals now offer hybrid options, including conventional (subscription-based access [SA]) publishing or OA (with an author publishing charge) in a subscription journal. OA publishing has been noted in many disciplines, but this has been rarely studied in dermatology.

METHODS

Using the Clarivate Journal Citation Report, we compiled a list of English-language dermatology hybrid OA journals containing more than 5% OA articles. We sampled any OA review or original research article in 4 issues from 2018 to 2019 and matched an equal number of SA articles. Citation count, citation count excluding self-citations and view counts found using Scopus and Altmetrics score were recorded for each article. Statistical analyses were performed using logistic and negative binomial models using R software.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven hybrid dermatology journals were found, and 538 articles were sampled (269 OA, 269 SA). For both original research and review articles, OA articles had significantly higher mean citation counts (mean 13.2, standard deviation [SD] 17.0) compared to SA articles (mean 7.9, SD 8.8) (odds ratio [OR] 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P < .001) including when adjusted for time from publication. Original research OA articles had significantly higher citation counts than original research SA articles (excluding self-citations; OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05; P = .003), and review articles also had OA citation advantage than review SA articles (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11; P = .008). There was, however, no significant difference in citation counts between review articles and original research articles (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.19-5.31; P = 1.000). There was no significant difference seen in view counts (OA: mean±SD 17.7±10.8; SA: mean±SD 17.1±12.4) and Altmetric score (OA: mean±SD 13.2±47.8; SA: mean±SD 6.3±25.0) between OA and SA articles. Potential confounders included the fact that more OA articles were published in Europe than in Asia, and pharmaceutical-funded articles were more likely to be published OA.

CONCLUSIONS

We noted a higher citation count for OA articles than SA articles in dermatology hybrid journals. However, dermatology researchers should take into account confounding factors when deciding whether to increase the impact of their work by selecting OA over SA publishing.

Fostering openness in open science: An ethical discussion of risks and benefits

Transformation of science by embracing the concepts of open science presents a very attractive strategy to enhance the reliability of science. Open science policies embody the concepts of open data and open access that encompass sharing of resources, dissemination of ideas, and synergizing the collaborative forums of research. Despite the opportunities in openness, however, there are grave ethical concerns too, and they present a dual-use dilemma. Access to sensitive information is seen as a security risk, and it also possesses other concerns such as confidentiality, privacy, and affordability. There are arguments that open science can be harmful to marginalized groups. Through this study, we aim to discuss the opportunities of open science, as well as the ethical and security aspects, which require further deliberation before full-fledged acceptance in the science community.

Language and Geographic Representation of Neurosurgical Journals: A Meta-Science Study

OBJECTIVE

Medical journals have a role in promoting representation of neurosurgeons who speak primary languages other than English. We sought to characterize the language of publication and geographic origin of neurosurgical journals, delineate associations between impact factor (IF) and language and geographic variables, and describe steps to overcome language barriers to publishing.

METHODS

Web of Science, Scopus, and Ulrich's Serial Analysis system were searched for neurosurgery journals. The journals were screened for relevance. Language of publication, country and World Health Organization region, World Bank income status and gross domestic product, and citation metrics were extracted.

RESULTS

Of 867 journals, 74 neurosurgical journals were included. Common publication languages were English (52, 70.3%), Mandarin (5, 6.8%), and Spanish (4, 5.4%). Countries of publication for the greatest number of journals were the United States (23, 31.1%), United Kingdom (8, 10.8%), and China (6, 8.1%). Most journals originated from the Americas region (29, 39.2%), the European region (28, 37.8%), and from high-income countries (n = 54, 73.0%). Median IF was 1.55 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.89-2.40). Journals written in English (1.77 [IQR 1.00-2.87], P = 0.032) and from high-income countries (1.81 [IQR 1.0-2.70], P = 0.046) had highest median IF. When excluding outliers, there was a small but positive correlation between per capita gross domestic product and IF (β = 0.021, P = 0.03, R² = 0.097).

CONCLUSIONS

Language concordance represents a substantial barrier to research equity in neurosurgery, limiting dissemination of ideas of merit that currently have inadequate outlets for readership. Initiatives aimed at increasing the accessibility of neurosurgical publishing to underrepresented authors are essential.

Predictors of evidence-based practice competency among Tunisian nursing students

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an important competency of undergraduate nursing students which should be cultivated before graduation by increasing future healthcare providers' knowledge, skills and attitudes towards EBP. This study aimed to describe nursing students' competencies (attitudes, knowledge, skills) in Evidence-based practice (EBP) and to determine factors predicting EBP competency.

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at the Higher School of Health Sciences and Techniques of Sousse (Tunisia) among 365 nursing students. Data were collected using the validated Evidence Based Practice Competencies Questionnaire (EBP-COQ). Multiple linear regression was performed to determine factors predicting EBP competencies.

RESULTS

The overall score of EBP-COQ questionnaire was 3.26 ± 0.53 out of 5. The attitude, skills and knowledge subscales received 4.04 ± 0.41; 3.05 ± 0.77 and 2.70 ± 0.74 as mean scores respectively. Multiple linear regression analysis (table 4) revealed that significant related factors were academic level (β = 0.271, p = 0.001), English-language reading skills (β = 0.435, p < 0.001), facing staff resistance in implementing a new evidence-based procedure (β = - 0.081, p = 0.035) difficulties in obtaining full-text papers (β = - 0.127, p < 0.001) and training in methodology (β = 0.232, p < 0.001) and also in statistics (β = 0.205, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These results help to understand students' attitudes, knowledge and skills in EBP and can be therefore a starting point to develop effective strategies for EBP curricula.

Equitable Open Access Publishing: Changing the Financial Power Dynamics in Academia

The growth in open access publishing in academia benefits readership but disproportionally hinders unfunded or lesser-funded researchers. Few journals create comprehensive means to bridge these inequities, calling for a shift in academic publishing practices.

State of Research Quality and Knowledge Transfer and Translation and Capacity Strengthening Strategies for Sound Health Policy Decision-Making in Palestine

Objectives: Over the last 2 decades, the World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed a global strategy and initiatives to establish a Health Research System (HRS) focusing on Health Research Quality and Standardization (HRQS), Health Research Knowledge Transfer and Dissemination (HRKTD), and Health Research Translation and Utilization into Health Care Decisions and Policies (HRTUDP). Despite the increase in health research productivity over the past several decades, HRS Capacity (HRSC) in Palestine and in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region has rarely been objectively evaluated. This study aims at eliciting the perceptions of HRS performers in Palestine in order to understand the status of HRSC, identify gaps, and generate policies and solutions capable of strengthening HRSC in Palestine.

Methods: Key informants from three sectors, namely government, academia, and local and international organizations, were selected purposively based on different sampling methods: criterion, critical case, snowball, and homogeneous sampling. Fifty-two in-depth interviews with key informants and a total of fifty-two individuals, participating in six focus groups, were conducted by the principal investigator in Palestine. Data were analyzed by using MAXQDA 12.

Results: The overall pattern of the Palestinian HRSC is relatively weak. The key findings revealed that while HR productivity in Palestine is improving, HRQS is at an average level and quality guidelines are not followed due to paucity of understanding, policies, and resources. HRKTD is a central challenge with both a dearth of conceptualization of translational science and inadequate implementation. The factors related to inadequate HRKTD include lack of awareness on the part of the researchers, inadequate regulatory frameworks and mechanisms for both communication and collaboration between and among researchers and policy-makers and clinicians, and lack of availability of, and credibility in, systematized and reliable HR data. Despite the limited knowledge translation, in general, HRTUDP is not considered an essential decision-making methodology mainly due to the lack of interface between knowledge producers (researchers) and users (policymakers), understanding level, HR credibility and availability of applied research, and governance, resources, and political fluctuations. Recommendations to strengthen HRS in Palestine include: a consolidated research regulatory framework and an effective capacity strengthening strategy overseen by Palestinian authorities; the promotion of HRQS and concepts and practices of translational science; and, most importantly, the use of findings for evidence-based policies and practice.

Conclusion: Strengthening HRSC is both an imperative step and an opportunity to improve the Palestinian health system and ensure it is based on research evidence and knowledge. Building a successful HRS characterized by capacities of high-quality research and well-disseminated and translated knowledge is a prerequisite to effective health systems and services. This can be achieved by political commitment to support such strengthening, a consolidated leadership and governance structure, and a strong operational capacity strengthening strategy.

Open Access and Article Processing Charges in Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery Journals: a Cross-Sectional Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Open access (OA) publishing often requires article processing charges (APCs). While OA provides opportunities for broader readership, authors able to afford APCs are more commonly associated with well-funded, high-income country institutions, skewing knowledge dissemination. Here, we evaluate publishing models, OA practices, and APCs in cardiology and cardiac surgery.

METHODS

The InCites Journal Citation Reports 2019 directory by Clarivate Analytics was searched for "Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems" journals. Sister journals of included journals were identified. All journals were categorized as predominantly cardiology or cardiac surgery. Publishing models, APCs, and APC waivers were defined for all journals.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-one journals were identified (139 cardiology, 22 cardiac surgery). APCs ranged from $244 to $5,000 ($244-5,000 cardiology; $383-3,300 cardiac surgery), with mean $2,911±891 and median $3,000 (interquartile range [IQR]: $2,500-3,425) across 139 journals with non-zero available APCs ($2,970±890, median $3,000, IQR: $2,573-3,450, cardiology; $2,491±799, median $2,740, IQR: $2,300-3,000, cardiac surgery). Average APCs were $3,307±566 and median $3,250 (IQR: $3,000-3,500) for hybrid journals ($3,344±583, median $3,260, IQR: $3,000-3,690, cardiology; $2,983±221, median $2,975, IQR: $2,780-3,149, cardiac surgery) and $1,997±832 and median $2,100 (IQR: $1,404-2,538) for fully OA journals ($2,039±843, median $2,100, IQR: $1,419-2,604, cardiology; $1,788±805, median $2,000, IQR: $1,475-2,345, cardiac surgery). Waivers were available for 51 (86.4%) fully OA and 37 (37.4%) hybrid journals. Seventeen journals were fully OA without APCs, one journal did not yet release APCs, and four journals were subscription-only.

CONCLUSION

OA publishing is common in cardiology and cardiac surgery with substantial APCs. Waivers remain limited, posing barriers for unfunded and lesser-funded researchers.

Is Sharing Datasets the Answer to the New Challenges of Reproductive Biology Research?

Data sharing increases the speed of research and saves time and resources while ensuring transparency and reproducibility. We have analyzed this behavior through the reproductive biology community. Our study revealed that Q1 (44%) and Q2 (36%) JCR reproductive biology journals are the most active journals in data sharing.

Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the financial costs paid by individual medical researchers from meeting the article processing charges (APCs) levied by open access journals in 2019.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Scopus was used to generate two random samples of researchers, the first with a senior author article indexed in the 'Medicine' subject area (general researchers) and the second with an article published in the ten highest-impact factor general clinical medicine journals (high-impact researchers) in 2019. For each researcher, Scopus was used to identify all first and senior author original research or review articles published in 2019. Data were obtained from Scopus, institutional profiles, Journal Citation Reports, publisher databases, the Directory of Open Access Journals, and individual journal websites.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Median APCs paid by general and high-impact researchers for all first and senior author research and review articles published in 2019.

RESULTS

There were 241 general and 246 high-impact researchers identified as eligible for our study. In 2019, the general and high-impact researchers published a total of 914 (median 2, IQR 1-5) and 1471 (4, 2-8) first or senior author research or review articles, respectively. 42% (384/914) of the articles from the general researchers and 29% (428/1471) of the articles from the high-impact medical researchers were published in fully open access journals. The median total APCs paid by general researchers in 2019 was US$191 (US$0-US$2500) and the median total paid by high-impact researchers was US$2900 (US$0-US$5465); the maximum paid by a single researcher in total APCs was US$30115 and US$34676, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical researchers in 2019 were found to have paid between US$0 and US$34676 in total APCs. As journals with APCs become more common, it is important to continue to evaluate the potential cost to researchers, especially on individuals who may not have the funding or institutional resources to cover these costs.

Education during Surgical Outreach Trips in Vietnam: A Qualitative Study of Surgeon Learners

Visiting educator trips teach surgical care in low-resource settings to develop sustainable global surgery. Surgery has been integral in these volunteer activities, but it is unknown whether surgeon learners receive suitable education during these trips. We sought to describe the educational experiences of surgeon learners during a visiting educator trip to better understand the perceptions of surgical outreach education.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews of 18 surgeon learners participating in a visiting educator trip to 2 hospitals in Thai Nguyen, Vietnam. Each interview was conducted in Vietnamese, translated into English, and transcribed. Narratives were content coded using thematic analyses.

Results

We identified 3 main themes. First, participants noted the value in surgical outreach and believed that these trips provided a thorough understanding of surgical care from patient evaluation to complications management. Second, participants described key barriers to education. Participants desired to focus on "learning one topic in depth" rather than learning in breadth. Furthermore, they described the paucity of translated resources, a lack of English proficiency, and rudimentary translator services. Finally, participants provided substantive guidance in improving surgical outreach education, specifically regarding the limited nature of current international partnerships to foster long-term, sustainable relationships.

Conclusions

Although Vietnamese surgeon learners felt that visiting educator trips were beneficial, they recognized important areas for improvement. The language barrier was a major impediment to effective learning with materials and lectures commonly provided in English, highlighting the need for improved language concordance. Additionally, participants desired continued relationships with the visiting surgeons to build long-term collaboration.

Open access publishers: The new players

The essential role of journals as registries of scientific activity in all areas of knowledge justifies concern about their ownership and type of access. The purpose of this research is to analyze the main characteristics of publishers with journals that have received the DOAJ Seal. The specific objectives are a) to identify publishers and journals registered with the DOAJ Seal; b) to characterize those publishers; and c) to analyze their article processing fees. The research method involved the use of the DOAJ database, the Seal option and the following indicators: publisher, title, country, number of articles, knowledge area, article processing charges in USD, time for publication in weeks, and year of indexing in DOAJ. The results reveal a fast-rising oligopoly, dominated by Springer with 35% of the titles and PLOS with more than 20% of the articles. We've identified three models of expansion: a) a few titles with hundreds of articles; b) a high number of titles with a mix of big and small journals; and c) a high number of titles with medium-size journals. We identify a high number of titles without APCs (27%) in all areas while medicine was found to be the most expensive area. Commercial publishers clearly exercise control over the scope of journals and the creation of new titles, according to the interests of their companies, which are not necessarily the same as those of the scientific community or of society in general.

The Emergency Medicine Facing the Challenge of Open Science

(1) Background: The availability of research datasets can strengthen and facilitate research processes. This is specifically relevant in the emergency medicine field due to the importance of providing immediate care in critical situations as the very current Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic is showing to the scientific community. This work aims to show which Emergency Medicine journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) currently meet data sharing criteria. (2) Methods: This study analyzes the editorial policies regarding the data deposit of the journals in the emergency medicine category of the JCR and evaluates the Supplementary material of the articles published in these journals that have been deposited in the PubMed Central repository. (3) Results: It has been observed that 19 out of the 24 journals contained in the emergency medicine category of Journal Citation Reports are also located in PubMed Central (PMC), yielding a total of 5983 articles. Out of these, only 9.4% of the articles contain supplemental material. Although second quartile journals of JCR emergency medicine category have quantitatively more articles in PMC, the main journals involved in the deposit of supplemental material belong to the first quartile, of which the most used format in the articles is pdf, followed by text documents. (4) Conclusion: This study reveals that data sharing remains an incipient practice in the emergency medicine field, as there are still barriers between researchers to participate in data sharing. Therefore, it is necessary to promote dynamics to improve this practice both qualitatively (the quality and format of datasets) and quantitatively (the quantity of datasets in absolute terms) in research.

Open to the public: paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing

Public voices have largely been absent from the discussions about open access publishing in medical research. Yet the public have a strong interest in ensuring open access of medical research findings because of their roles as funders, advocates, research participants, and patients. By limiting access to research outputs, the current publishing system makes it more difficult for research to be held accountable to the public. Paywalls undermine the work of public advocacy, which requires open access in order to lobby for policy changes and research funding. Research participants generously give their time and energy to research studies with the assumption that the results will be broadly disseminated. Finally, members of the public have a stake in open access publishing as a resource for health information and decision-making. This commentary explores these crucial roles of the public in order to develop a public rationale for open access medical research. We outline a critique of the current academic publishing ecosystem, re-focus the open access debate from a public perspective, and respond to some of the arguments against public open access. Although open access to medical research is not a panacea, removing paywalls and other barriers to public access is essential. The public are critical stakeholders of medical research data.

Scientific Authors in a Changing World of Scholarly Communication: What Does the Future Hold?

Scholarly communication in science, technology, and medicine has been organized around journal-based scientific publishing for the past 350 years. Scientific publishing has unique business models and includes stakeholders with conflicting interests-publishers, funders, libraries, and scholars who create, curate, and consume the literature. Massive growth and change in scholarly communication, coinciding with digitalization, have amplified stresses inherent in traditional scientific publishing, as evidenced by overwhelmed editors and reviewers, increased retraction rates, emergence of pseudo-journals, strained library budgets, and debates about the metrics of academic recognition for scholarly achievements. Simultaneously, several open access models are gaining traction and online technologies offer opportunities to augment traditional tasks of scientific publishing, develop integrated discovery services, and establish global and equitable scholarly communication through crowdsourcing, software development, big data management, and machine learning. These rapidly evolving developments raise financial, legal, and ethical dilemmas that require solutions, while successful strategies are difficult to predict. Key challenges and trends are reviewed from the authors' perspective about how to engage the scholarly community in this multifaceted process.

NGOs' experiences of navigating the open access landscape

Grant-led consortia working in the global development sector rely on the input of local and national non-government organisations in low- and middle-income countries. However, the open access mandates and mechanisms embedded within grants and promoted by funders and publishers are designed almost exclusively with large universities and research institutions in mind. Experiences from the consortium of health research non-government organisations comprising the Communicable Diseases Health Service Delivery research programme show that implementing open access mandates is not as simple or frictionless as it initially appears.

Open access policies of leading medical journals: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Academical and not-for-profit research funders are increasingly requiring that the research they fund must be published open access, with some insisting on publishing with a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to allow the broadest possible use. We aimed to clarify the open access variants provided by leading medical journals and record the availability of the CC BY licence for commercially funded research.

METHODS

We identified medical journals with a 2015 impact factor of ≥15.0 on 24 May 2017, then excluded from the analysis journals that only publish review articles. Between 29 June 2017 and 26 July 2017, we collected information about each journal's open access policies from their websites and/or by email contact. We contacted the journals by email again between 6 December 2017 and 2 January 2018 to confirm our findings.

RESULTS

Thirty-five medical journals publishing original research from 13 publishers were included in the analysis. All 35 journals offered some form of open access allowing articles to be free-to-read, either immediately on publication or after a delay of up to 12 months. Of these journals, 21 (60%) provided immediate open access with a CC BY licence under certain circumstances (eg, to specific research funders). Of these 21, 20 only offered a CC BY licence to authors funded by non-commercial organisations and one offered this option to any funder who required it.

CONCLUSIONS

Most leading medical journals do not offer to authors reporting commercially funded research an open access licence that allows unrestricted sharing and adaptation of the published material. The journals' policies are therefore not aligned with open access declarations and guidelines. Commercial research funders lag behind academical funders in the development of mandatory open access policies, and it is time for them to work with publishers to advance the dissemination of the research they fund.

What, why and how do health systems learn from one another? Insights from eight low- and middle-income country case studies

BACKGROUND

All health systems struggle to meet health needs within constrained resources. This is especially true for low-income countries. It is critical that they can learn from wider contexts in order to improve their performance. This article examines policy transfer and evidence use linked to it in low- and middle-income settings. The objective was to inform international investments in improved learning across health systems.

METHODS

The article uses a comparative case study design, drawing on case studies conducted in Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Nepal, Rwanda and Solomon Islands. One or two recent health system reforms were selected in each case and 148 key informants were interviewed in total, using a semi-structured tool focused on different stages of the policy cycle. Interviewees were selected for their engagement in the policy process and represented political, technical, development partner, non-governmental, academic and civil society constituencies. Data analysis used a framework approach, allowing for new themes to be developed inductively, focusing initially on each case and then on patterns across cases.

RESULTS

The selected policies demonstrated a range of influences of externally imposed, co-produced and home-grown solutions on the development of initial policy ideas. Eventual uptake of policy was strongly driven in most settings by local political economic considerations. Policy development post-adoption demonstrated some strong internal review, monitoring and sharing processes but there is a more contested view of the role of evaluation. In many cases, learning was facilitated by direct personal relationships with local development partner staff. While barriers and facilitators to evidence use included supply and demand factors, the most influential facilitators were incentives and capacity to use evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings emphasise the agency of local actors and the importance of developing national and sub-national institutions for gathering, filtering and sharing evidence. Developing demand for and capacity to use evidence appears more important than augmenting supply of evidence, although specific gaps in supply were identified. The findings also highlight the importance of the local political economy in setting parameters within which evidence is considered and the need for a conceptual framework for health system learning.

Bringing research to the bedside: Knowledge translation in the mental health care of burns patients

Advances in surgical techniques and wound management have improved outcomes for burn patients; however, the psychological impacts on burn survivors have had less attention. There is a higher rate of mental health disorders amongst burns victims, with those with pre-existing mental health conditions likely to have worse outcomes. To implement effective burns care and rehabilitation, knowledge and understanding of mental health issues is required. This position paper discusses the extent to which clinicians currently translate knowledge around mental health and burns into practice to identify enables and inhibitors. Successful knowledge translation requires dissemination and accessibility of information with the capacity and readiness for change. Clinicians and researchers need to identify how translating research to practice can meet the needs of burn survivors. There is a gap in the utilization of evidence concerning mental health and the needs of burns survivors, and we need to understand what we know as compared to what we do. Clinicians are well placed to determine how and why knowledge does not necessarily translate to practice and how they can better accommodate the needs of burn survivors.

Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: the case of global health research

Using a database of recent articles published in the field of Global Health research, we examine institutional sources of stratification in publishing access outcomes. Traditionally, the focus on inequality in scientific publishing has focused on prestige hierarchies in established print journals. This project examines stratification in contemporary publishing with a particular focus on subscription vs. various Open Access (OA) publishing options. Findings show that authors working at lower-ranked universities are more likely to publish in closed/paywalled outlets, and less likely to choose outlets that involve some sort of Article Processing Charge (APCs; gold or hybrid OA). We also analyze institutional differences and stratification in the APC costs paid in various journals. Authors affiliated with higher-ranked institutions, as well as hospitals and non-profit organizations pay relatively higher APCs for gold and hybrid OA publications. Results suggest that authors affiliated with high-ranked universities and well-funded institutions tend to have more resources to choose pay options with publishing. Our research suggests new professional hierarchies developing in contemporary publishing, where various OA publishing options are becoming increasingly prominent. Just as there is stratification in institutional representation between different types of publishing access, there is also inequality within access types.

The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles

Despite growing interest in Open Access (OA) to scholarly literature, there is an unmet need for large-scale, up-to-date, and reproducible studies assessing the prevalence and characteristics of OA. We address this need using oaDOI, an open online service that determines OA status for 67 million articles. We use three samples, each of 100,000 articles, to investigate OA in three populations: (1) all journal articles assigned a Crossref DOI, (2) recent journal articles indexed in Web of Science, and (3) articles viewed by users of Unpaywall, an open-source browser extension that lets users find OA articles using oaDOI. We estimate that at least 28% of the scholarly literature is OA (19M in total) and that this proportion is growing, driven particularly by growth in Gold and Hybrid. The most recent year analyzed (2015) also has the highest percentage of OA (45%). Because of this growth, and the fact that readers disproportionately access newer articles, we find that Unpaywall users encounter OA quite frequently: 47% of articles they view are OA. Notably, the most common mechanism for OA is not Gold, Green, or Hybrid OA, but rather an under-discussed category we dub Bronze: articles made free-to-read on the publisher website, without an explicit Open license. We also examine the citation impact of OA articles, corroborating the so-called open-access citation advantage: accounting for age and discipline, OA articles receive 18% more citations than average, an effect driven primarily by Green and Hybrid OA. We encourage further research using the free oaDOI service, as a way to inform OA policy and practice.